The United States District Court for the Central District of California is one of ninety-four United States district courts. The court serves about seventeen million people in southern and central California, making it the largest federal judicial district by population. The district operates out of courthouses in Santa Ana, Riverside and two locations in Los Angeles. When decisions of the court are appealed, they are appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in downtown San Francisco at the James R. Browing Federal Courthouse. Initial appeals are heard in Pasadena at the Richard Chambers Courthouse.

The United States Attorney for the Central District of California represents the United States in civil and criminal litigation in the court. The current district attorney is Stephanie Yonekura[1]

Vacancy warning level

The United States District Court for the Central District of California'svacancy warning level is blue. The court currently has no vacancies.

Pending nominations

There are no pending nominations for the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

*All statistics are taken from the Official Federal Courts' Website and reflect the calendar year through September. **Time in months from filing to completion.#This statistic includes cases which have been appealed in higher courts. ##This is the total number of months that any judicial posts had spent vacant that year.

On July 16, 2014, Judge Cormac Carney ruled that California's death penalty system violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and was therefore unconstitutional. He also found that executions following the California system's inherent delays would "serve no retributive or deterrent purpose and [would] be arbitrary."[3][4]

In the underlying case, plaintiff Ernest Dewayne Jones was sentenced to death on April 7, 1995, yet lived on California's Death Row awaiting his eventual execution for almost twenty years. In Jones's case, it took four years for an attorney to be appointed to represent him in his direct appeal to the California Supreme Court in 1999. Four years later, in 2003, that court affirmed Jones's conviction. Jones then applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari, which was later denied in 2003. Jones's state habeas corpus attorney was appointed in 2000, five years after he was sentenced to death. Two years later, in 2002, his state habeas attorney filed Jones's petition. The California Supreme Court denied that petition six and a half years later, in 2009. In 2010, Jones filed a federal habeas petition, and briefing on the case was completed in January 2014. In April 2014, Jones amended the petition to expand upon his claims of unconstitutional delay in California's administration of its death penalty system. Jones's timeline of events and his allegations of unconstitutional delay are what brought about Judge Carney's finding.[5]

In his opinion, Judge Carney noted that California's death penalty system was "so plagued by inordinate and unpredictable delay" that the average review process took about 25 years. Judge Carney further pointed out that more prisoners on California's Death Row died of natural causes while awaiting their execution than were actually executed by the state. Since 1978, just thirteen out of the more than 900 who have lived on Death Row who were sentenced to death were executed.[3][4] In view of these facts, Judge Carney went on to write:

“

For all practical purposes then, a sentence of death in California is a sentence of life imprisonment with the remote possibility of death—a sentence no rational legislature or jury could ever impose.[6]

”

Judge Carney concluded his opinion by stating that California's continued delays "resulted in a system that serves no penological purpose," and that "[s]uch a system is unconstitutional." Judge Carney then vacated Jones's death sentence.[3][4]

Judge Stephen V. Wilson presided over a suit brought by out-of-state producers of foie gras over California’s Bird Feeding bill, which served as a ban on the sale of fattened duck liver. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary emergency injunction, arguing that the law was unconstitutionally vague and adversely affected interstate commerce. Judge Wilson denied the motion, ruling that because it was not timely filed, the arguments must be made in court.

Judge James Selna was chosen on April 9, 2010, to preside over 200 lawsuits involving the car maker Toyota. A group of twenty-six attorneys sued Toyota for negligence after the company was forced to recall many vehicles due to sudden acceleration problems.[13][14][15]
In December 2012, a settlement between Toyota and the claimants was announced. While the exact amount was not known, Toyota was said to have paid $1.2 to $1.4 billion directly to car owners, in order to install new brake systems into millions of cars.[16]

In September 2010, Judge Virginia Phillips ruled that the U.S. military's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which outlined the rules regarding homosexuals serving in the armed forces, violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling found in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that the policy restricted soldiers' rights to substantive due process and free speech. However, the policy was not overturned as a result.[17][18]

Judge King ordered Tierra Santa, an interstate bus transportation company, to cease its operations on March 6, 2010. This came after the Federal Motor Carrier Administration ordered the company to stop operations after a tragic bus accident on March 5, 2010, in Arizona. According to federal authorities, the bus operator during that accident was operating illegally.[19]

Judge Manuel Real presided in the case of Michael David Barrett, a former insurance executive from Illinois who was accused of stalking ESPN sideline reporter Erin Andrews in Wisconsin, Tennessee, and Ohio. Barrett pleaded guilty as part of a plea agreement, and originally agreed to a twenty-seven-month prison sentence. However, Andrews pleaded to Judge Real that she wanted Barrett locked up for as long as possible. Despite her plea for a longer sentence, the judge sentenced Barrett to twenty-seven months in prison on March 15, 2010.[20]

Judge Percy Anderson sentenced two former supermarket managers to probation for telling locked out employees to use false social security numbers to get re-hired during a grocery strike in 2003 and 2004.
The two former zone managers for Ralph's Supermarkets were sentenced on March 22, 2010, to two years of probation. They were convicted of falsifying Internal Revenue Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service documents.[21]

On July 20, 2009, Judge David Carter barred Medical Capital Holdings Inc. from selling additional securities in an offering that raised at least $76.9 million. The ruling was in response to a complaint alleging fraud against the company filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.[22]
Judge Carter also froze the assets of the company and its subsidiaries, and appointed a temporary receiver to oversee the firm. The SEC filed a complaint on July 16, 2009, alleging that the financial services company committed fraud as far back as 2003. The SEC complaint also alleged that the company lied to shareholders over not reporting $1.2 billion in notes outstanding and $992.5 million in notes that went into default.[22]

A homosexual couple sued the State of California claiming the 2008 ballot measure violated the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.[23]

The judge's ruling found the plaintiffs were legally married before the enactment of Proposition 8. Because the California Supreme Court in May of 2009 ruled that their marriage would be upheld, there was no "injury" caused by the measure.[23]

Judge James Selna presided in a case involving age restrictions on immigration green cards. A group of green card holders sued the federal government, claiming that if children turned age twenty-one while their parents were awaiting a green card, they could have new applications signed on their behalf. However, the judge ruled on October 13, 2009, that if a child turned age twenty-one, they must restart the application process.[24]

Judge John Walter was the presiding judge in a lawsuit involving the music website BlueBeat.com. The judge on November 5, 2009, issued a restraining order on the music website on selling songs from the legendary music group The Beatles. EMI, which held the rights to The Beatles music, alleged the website illegally sold Beatles songs.[25]
In March 2011, BlueBeat.com agreed to pay over $1 million to EMI in a settlement.[26]

Judge George Wu was the presiding judge in the case of a Missouri woman who was convicted of computer fraud charges stemming from an Internet hoax that prompted a teenage girl to commit suicide. On July 2, 2009, Judge Wu decided to tentatively acquit Lori Drew, who was convicted in November 2008. The decision reversed a jury's verdict which convicted the woman of computer fraud charges.[27]

The case received a lot of national attention and created an uproar on the issue of internet security.[27]

On August 28, 2009, Judge Wu officially reversed the conviction of Lori Drew. The judge found that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was not applied beyond a reasonable doubt in convicting Drew of a misdemeanor. Wu said that the federal law that governed terms and conditions of visiting a website was "constitutionally vague."[28]

Almost three months later, federal prosecutors said they would not appeal Judge Wu's dismissal of charges against Drew.[29]

In 2009, Judge Cormac Carney presided over the trial of a Chinese-born engineer who was charged with stealing trade secrets critical to the U.S. space program.[30]

Dongfan "Greg" Chung was found guilty on July 14, 2009, of six counts of economic espionage and other charges, including hoarding 300,000 pages of sensitive documents in his home. The charges included that Chung destroyed information about a U.S. space shuttle and a booster rocket.[30]

Chung was a space engineer for Boeing, and used to work for Rockwell Automation. During the investigation, federal investigators found papers in Chung's home that included top-secret information about a fueling system for a booster rocket. It was against company policy for Boeing employees to take sensitive documents home. The documents that investigators found were part of Boeing's $50 million investment for the booster rocket system.[30]

Chung was the first person convicted under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. The 1996 law was created to help the government crack down on stolen information from private companies that contracted with the federal government. The law applied to contractors that provided technology services for the U.S. space and military programs.[30]

Judge Audrey Collins was the presiding judge in a highly charged lawsuit involving World Wide Rush, LLC and the City of Los Angeles. The lawsuit claimed that the City of Los Angeles wrongfully refused permits to approve billboards in the city. The judge disallowed the lawsuit on the basis there was not enough evidence World Wide Rush could prove beyond a reasonable doubt.[31]

The consent decree happened after the Rampart scandal which affected the anti-gang unit of the police force. The scandal was one of a number of incidents that bruised the image of the department during the 1990s. In 1999, a federal judge ordered that the Los Angeles Police Department appoint an independent monitor and comply with 100 reforms including a ban on all racial profiling.

After noted improvements as to how the LAPD conducted its operations, the independent monitor asked the judge for an end to the decree. In ending the decree, the judge approved a transition agreement that would move oversight of the department to the Los Angeles Police Commission. The agreement ordered units of the department to report to the police oversight body. Judge Feess told the parties that the court would keep jurisdiction over the agreement.[32]

On August 4, 2009, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press filed a motion asking Judge Stephen V. Wilson to unseal court transcripts in a lawsuit over a Jewish activist who was killed in prison. The motion came after Judge Wilson sealed the records concerning a protective order from the Bureau of Prisons that protected the identity of a prisoner.[33]
Judge Wilson closed the civil trial, and only allowed information released to the public after "sensitive information" was removed.[34]

In August 2008, Judge Christina Snyder issued an original injunction against the California Department of Health Services and the California Legislature. Judge Snyder granted California an injunction on state-mandated cuts of reimbursement rates against Medi-Cal providers.[35]

The original lawsuit was filed by Medi-Cal providers after the state legislature approved ten percent cuts of reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal providers in February 2008. The legislation was approved by both houses of the California legislature and was approved by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The cuts went into effect on July 1, 2008.[35]

On August 18, 2008, Judge Snyder granted a partial injunction against the State of California. Judge Snyder blocked the ten percent cut for providers. However, Snyder ruled that managed-care plans and acute-care hospitals not under contract with the State were subject to the ten percent reductions.[35]

After the August ruling, David Maxwell-Jolly, who headed Medi-Cal, argued that the injunction should apply only to payments for services provided on or after August 18, the day the judge issued the order. Snyder accepted the arguments of Mr. Maxwell-Jolly, and granted the adjustment which prompted appeals by all parties to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[35]

In a separate ruling on February 27, 2009, Snyder issued an injunction against the State of California. Snyder barred the state from imposing a five percent cut in Medi-Cal payments to pharmacies.[36]

On July 10, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Snyder's decision of withholding reduced reimbursements from July 1 to August 18, 2008. The Ninth Circuit's ruling came amid a serious budget deficit the state faced.[35]

Judge Dean Pregerson ruled that immigration officials' decision to withhold medical treatment from a detainee was "beyond cruel and unusual." The detainee, Francisco Castaneda, died of penile cancer on February 16, 2008.

According to the suit, the government denied the detainee treatment for eleven months, refusing to authorize a biopsy for a growing lesion, despite the urging of numerous medical professionals. Instead, the government gave Castaneda antihistamines, ibuprofen, and extra boxer shorts. The judge characterized the treatment in his ruling as "nothing."

Per Los Angeles Times staff writer Henry Weinstein, "Pregerson blasted public health officials' 'attempt to sidestep responsibility for what appear[ed] to be . . . one of the most, if not the most, egregious' violations of the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment that 'the court ha[d] ever encountered.'"[37]

History

The Central District of California was established by Congress on March 18, 1966. Following this act, ten judicial posts were transferred from the Southern District of California, with the addition of three new judicial posts. Over time, fifteen more judicial posts were added for a total of twenty-eight posts.[38]

Judicial posts

The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the Central District of California:[38]

Former chief judges

In order to qualify for the office of chief judge in one of the federal courts, a judge must have been in active service on the court for at least one year, be under the age of 65, and have not previously served as chief judge. A vacancy in the office of chief judge is filled by the judge highest in seniority among the group of qualified judges. The chief judge serves for a term of seven years or until age 70, whichever occurs first. The age restrictions are waived if no members of the court would otherwise be qualified for the position. Unlike the Chief Justice of the United States, a chief judge returns to active service after the expiration of his or her term and does not create a vacancy on the bench by the fact of his or her promotion.[39][40]